Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
IS STATE-SUBSIDISING WEALTHY PRIVATE SCHOOLS NOT OUTRAGEOUS?
Options
-
09-02-2011 10:13pm#1Hi,
Forgive me if this is an old and tired topic of debate. I'm new to the area and am only beginning to try and grapple with the way in which the education system works.
My main query is as per the title. Why is there not more discussion about the fact that the State pays out substantial amounts of tax-payers money to pay for teachers and therefore fund smaller classes in wealthy private schools? With all of the qualified teachers currently out of work, surely a more equitable and employment engendering solution would be have the private schools pay for their own teachers and allow the state funded teachers to be employed in public schools?
Why is this not more of an issue? Maybe there has been a public debate about this and I have not been paying attention?0
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 25686
There are very few publicly-owned schools - this muddies the waters somewhat in the public/private debate.
The majority of schools in Ireland are owned by the Catholic Church in some guise or another.0 -
magicaljaso wrote: »Hi,
Why is there not more discussion about the fact that the State pays out substantial amounts of tax-payers money to pay for teachers and therefore fund smaller classes in wealthy private schools?
Probably because the major opinion formers have a vested interest in the status quo or at least not criticising it.
For example The Irish Times floods wealthy private schools with free and subsidised newspapers to guarantee future readers and to appeal to future advertisers who will come from such schools. It and the Irish Independent will also go big on the Leinster schools' rugby competitions and send a journalist out to cover an otherwise obscure girls' hockey match for the same reason. It is not in the interest of such opinion formers to bite the hand that feeds them by criticising policy regarding such schools.
As for politicians, I imagine that privately educated people are disproportionately represented in the average cabinet. For example in the incipient new cabinet you'll have Leo Varadker, Brian Hayes, Ruairí Quinn, Simon Coveney, Richard Bruton, Eamon Gilmore and James Reilly - all educated in fee-paying schools and not maybe of the mindset to challenge the status quo. I would guess that less than 10 per cent of the population is educated in fee-paying schools but at least half the cabinet will have been. So that (the cabinet), like the media, is not reflective of society and will hardly raise debate on such a matter.
Whether this argument should be had in order to provide more money for jobs for teachers or because it is immoral (and arguably unconstitutional) in a country where we are all constitutionally equal is another matter of course. But it's easy to see why it is not raised as an issue - it is not in the interests of those who would have the power to raise it as most will have been educated privately and/or will educate their own children privately (politicians/newspaper editors), or have some financial benefit in such segregration of society in schools (newspaper marketing people who have a target audience).0 -
There are very few publicly-owned schools - this muddies the waters somewhat in the public/private debate.
The majority of schools in Ireland are owned by the Catholic Church in some guise or another.
In fairness I think it is clear that the OP means fee-paying schools. Privately owned schools are not necessarily the same thing.0 -
In fairness I think it is clear that the OP means fee-paying schools. Privately owned schools are not necessarily the same thing.
When I said private I meant fee-paying. When I said public I meant schools that are not fee-paying.
Thanks for your replies. I appreciate there may be vested interests, however there are usually enough smoked-salmon socialists brought in by those papers who I would thought would be all over such an apparently obvious economic imbalance. I have the impression I'm missing something. Perhaps there is a valid, logical argument for the status quo?0 -
magicaljaso wrote: »With all of the qualified teachers currently out of work, surely a more equitable and employment engendering solution would be have the private schools pay for their own teachers and allow the state funded teachers to be employed in public schools?
So the private schools can increase wages, leading to a brain drain in the public sector? This is besides the point that the fees generated go to pay (in part) things like heating, insurance and maintenance which are 6 to 7 figure sums a year in most average sized secondary schools - taking a further strain off the government.The Irish Times floods wealthy private schools with free and subsidised newspapers
Where would this be? They do, however, flood the Universities0 -
Advertisement
-
-
So the private schools can increase wages, leading to a brain drain in the public sector?
That's an interesting notion - that there would be pressure on the private sector in education to pay higher salaries than in the public sector. What would be the nature of this pressure? I can't imagine it's something any private enterprise would aspire to do without some kind of external economic pressure. Do fee-paying schools have difficulty attracting staff or something?0 -
Are you not familiar with the names of private schools? If the 'however' bit in your irrelevant reference to the universities is an implication that what I'm saying is not true you'd be wrong.
So you'll have no trouble answering my question then. What private schools are ''flooded'' with free newspapers? Indeed, what private schools sell newspapers (bar the boarding schools)?That's an interesting notion - that there would be pressure on the private sector in education to pay higher salaries than in the public sector. What would be the nature of this pressure? I can't imagine it's something any private enterprise would aspire to do without some kind of external economic pressure. Do fee-paying schools have difficulty attracting staff or something?
If the wages were paid by the private schools, then they'd be free to pay whatever they chose and the best teachers would inevitably gravitate toward the money. Leading to a brain drain in the public sector.
As it stands, are you suggesting that the best teachers are located in private schools? If so, on what are you basing this?0 -
I'm far from well off, but the continuous recurrence of this inane, and frankly ignorant piece of rabble rousing really irks me. It's class warfare of the most rank kind. The wealthy among us pay taxes. Those taxes help to pay our teachers. Why then, should the wealthy not gain the benefit of that for which their taxes are contributing? Can anyone give me a rational answer? I serioualy doubt. Basically, the OP wants the well off to pay towards the teachers of his kids, and then fork out again to pay for their own kids. It's ridiculous.0
-
- Children have a constitutional right to education
- The state has an obligation to provide education
====================================================
Is it morally acceptable that the capitation goes to fee paying schools (which I guess is the OP's real question)? I say, yes it is.
The vast majority of parents who send their children to fee paying schools are normal law-abiding, tax-paying citizens albeit with good jobs (doctors, lawyers etc). These people are generally at the mid to higher end of the tax net. Therefore if they've paid their taxes why shouldn't their children receive the capitation grant?
What they do with their wages after they've paid their taxes is their own business e.g. paying for their children to go to a fee paying school.
This is not my personal opinion but to take it to the other extreme, it could be argued that it is wrong that people who pay high taxes have to fund the education of children of people who pay little or no tax.0 -
Advertisement
-
1) So you'll have no trouble answering my question then. What private schools are ''flooded'' with free newspapers? Indeed, what private schools sell newspapers (bar the boarding schools)?
2) If the wages were paid by the private schools, then they'd be free to pay whatever they chose and the best teachers would inevitably gravitate toward the money. Leading to a brain drain in the public sector.
3) As it stands, are you suggesting that the best teachers are located in private schools? If so, on what are you basing this?
1) No problem at all. Google fee-paying schools - my background knowledge of this is from having worked in the newspaper industry rather than in loads of the schools, so if you want specifics you'll get a list of schools by googling them. Incidentally I don't know of any schools that sell newspapers which is why I never mentioned it, but I suppose they may be out there.
2) How would private schools identify the 'best' teachers? Why when there is a significant over-supply of teachers would a private profit-making enterprise feel the need to pay over the odds?
3) Are you suggesting I am suggesting that the best teachers are located in private schools? If so, on what are you basing this? I cannot see for the life of me where I suggested that. But perhaps you'd point it out specifically.0 -
- The state has an obligation to provide education
This is debateable at the level of payment of salary. The home is the primary educator constitutionally and this has been upheld in court in recent times where a parent wished to educate their child in the home and the court found in their favour. The court made no mention of any constitutional obligation on the state to pay the parent a salary to do so. So the question of payment of all teachers' salaries by the state is far from clear it seems to me.0 -
Go secular like the French and let everyone who wants religious or fee paying school fund their own teachers, but still be publicly audited. It would force everyone into the one room and the powerful would insist on the best facilities for their child's school, which also happens to be the school of the poorest children. I'd say that crime in schools (by children) would come under the spotlight as a minister's or judge's child being affect would change the complextion of the topic.0
-
This is debateable at the level of payment of salary. The home is the primary educator constitutionally and this has been upheld in court in recent times where a parent wished to educate their child in the home and the court found in their favour. The court made no mention of any constitutional obligation on the state to pay the parent a salary to do so. So the question of payment of all teachers' salaries by the state is far from clear it seems to me.
I'm not arguing from the point of view of the Constitution, but from a sense of fairness. I don't think a group in society can be asked to contribute to an educational fund, only to be told that they are not allowed derive any benefit from it. That's fundamentally inequitable.0 -
- Children have a constitutional right to education
- The state has an obligation to provide education
====================================================
Is it morally acceptable that the capitation goes to fee paying schools (which I guess is the OP's real question)? I say, yes it is.
The vast majority of parents who send their children to fee paying schools are normal law-abiding, tax-paying citizens albeit with good jobs (doctors, lawyers etc). These people are generally at the mid to higher end of the tax net. Therefore if they've paid their taxes why shouldn't their children receive the capitation grant?
What they do with their wages after they've paid their taxes is their own business e.g. paying for their children to go to a fee paying school.
This is not my personal opinion but to take it to the other extreme, it could be argued that it is wrong that people who pay high taxes have to fund the education of children of people who pay little or no tax.
The OP didn't mention capitation. The question was in relation to teachers' salaries not capitation.0 -
1) No problem at all. Google fee-paying schools
:rolleyes:my background knowledge of this is from having worked in the newspaper industry rather than in loads of the schools, so if you want specifics you'll get a list of schools by googling them. Incidentally I don't know of any schools that sell newspapers which is why I never mentioned it, but I suppose they may be out there.
So then you'll find it easy to tell us what schools get free papers. Also, if the schools don't sell newspapers then how is the Irish Times ''subsidised'' in private schools.2) How would private schools identify the 'best' teachers? Why when there is a significant over-supply of teachers would a private profit-making enterprise feel the need to pay over the odds?
The same way hiring the best teachers/instructors works in the private sector - by interview processes, in-situ examination of a teacher in a class environment etc...3) Are you suggesting I am suggesting that the best teachers are located in private schools? If so, on what are you basing this? I cannot see for the life of me where I suggested that. But perhaps you'd point it out specifically.
So if the best teachers aren't located in private schools whats the problem? The parents of the students in private schools would, in general terms, earn more than the parents of the students in public schools by the fact that they're paying 30k-50k to put their child through the senior cycle for no significant educational advantage. In fact, this fee wholly goes toward the running of the school outside of the teachers wages. Money that the government would have to pay otherwise.
Just to reiterate, the denizens of private schools are paying for the cost of maintaining, heating and insuring the school - as well as the other incidental costs associated with running a school - and its students have no significant educational advantage in terms of teachers. Whats the issue?0 -
I'm not arguing from the point of view of the Constitution, but from a sense of fairness. I don't think a group in society can be asked to contribute to an educational fund, only to be told that they are not allowed derive any benefit from it. That's fundamentally inequitable.
Not sure if you are operating under more than one user-name but I replied to a different person who raised the point you are explaining the nuances of now. Where does the aforementioned 'obligation' come from except the constitution?
However, since you mention it, there is a situation at the moment where a group in society (a large tranche of tax-payers) is asked to contribute to an educational fund, and are not allowed derive any benefit from it (because they cannot afford the fees for private schools despite their tax paying teachers' salaries). And yes, it is fundamentally inequitable.0 -
This is debateable at the level of payment of salary. The home is the primary educator constitutionally and this has been upheld in court in recent times where a parent wished to educate their child in the home and the court found in their favour. The court made no mention of any constitutional obligation on the state to pay the parent a salary to do so. So the question of payment of all teachers' salaries by the state is far from clear it seems to me.
So as the court made no mention of any obligation to pay a single parent (no mention of if they were a teacher or not) a salary to teach their progeny in a one to one environment, you parallel this with pensionable PAYE workers teaching a group of 30 odd in a formal environment? Just want to try and understand your position0 -
:
Just to reiterate, the denizens of private schools are paying for the cost of maintaining, heating and insuring the school - as well as the other incidental costs associated with running a school - and its students have no significant educational advantage in terms of teachers. Whats the issue?
Oh, what a waste of money then. You'd think the practice would die out.0 -
This is debateable at the level of payment of salary. The home is the primary educator constitutionally and this has been upheld in court in recent times where a parent wished to educate their child in the home and the court found in their favour. The court made no mention of any constitutional obligation on the state to pay the parent a salary to do so. So the question of payment of all teachers' salaries by the state is far from clear it seems to me.
As you say the home/parent is the primary educator and if they wish to educate their child at home then that's their prerogative. However, at that point they (the parent) have absolved the state of its duty to provide education and therefore funding for education e.g. salaries. Of course the state still has an obligation to insure the child is being educated properly.
If the child returns to education outside the home, then the state's obligation to provide education, and therefore funding, resumes.0 -
Advertisement
-
So as the court made no mention of any obligation to pay a single parent (no mention of if they were a teacher or not) a salary to teach their progeny in a one to one environment, you parallel this with pensionable PAYE workers teaching a group of 30 odd in a formal environment? Just want to try and understand your position
its the same in law. The court is saying that the (unpaid) home teacher does not need to be paid by the State, so we are arguing that teachers outside of the State education system dont have to be paid.0 -
Not sure if you are operating under more than one user-name but I replied to a different person who raised the point you are explaining the nuances of now.
I realise that, but I presume that people are allowed to respond even when they are not directly addressed? I'm new to this thread, so forive me if I've over-stepped the bounds...Where does the aforementioned 'obligation' come from except the constitution?
I never claimed there was a constitutional obligation.However, since you mention it, there is a situation at the moment where a group in society (a large tranche of tax-payers) is asked to contribute to an educational fund, and are not allowed derive any benefit from it (because they cannot afford the fees for private schools despite their tax paying teachers' salaries). And yes, it is fundamentally inequitable.
That's not the case at all. All tax-payers are allowed to derive beneft from the fund to which they contribute. I think you realise that is the case too.0 -
1) So then you'll find it easy to tell us what schools get free papers. Also, if the schools don't sell newspapers then how is the Irish Times ''subsidised'' in private schools.
2) The same way hiring the best teachers/instructors works in the private sector - by interview processes, in-situ examination of a teacher in a class environment etc...
3) So if the best teachers aren't located in private schools whats the problem? The parents of the students in private schools would, in general terms, earn more than the parents of the students in public schools by the fact that they're paying 30k-50k to put their child through the senior cycle for no significant educational advantage.
4) Just to reiterate, the denizens of private schools are paying for the cost of maintaining, heating and insuring the school - as well as the other incidental costs associated with running a school - and its students have no significant educational advantage in terms of teachers. Whats the issue?
1) http://www.educationireland.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=26
Here's the list of schools - in my past experience every one of them was getting copies of the newspaper I worked for. I assume the same situation obtains.
I said I didn't know if schools sold papers or not, so you'll have to mull over the question of subsidised papers yourself. I couldn't comment on that which is why I haven't.
2) Sounds terribly like hiring public sector teachers to me. Are you sure the private sector does not have a better method?!
3) I cannot comment on the standard of teachers in fee-paying schools - you are the only one talking about that. They are recruited in the same manner as every other school so I'd assume they are the same mix as the rest, but I cannot say.
The educational advantage in such schools is in smaller classes and better facilites not (necessarily) better teachers. Of course in some cases sending children to such schools is more about social engineering than educational advantage.
4) The issue, as raised by the OP, (you should have read the post) is whether private schools should not operate completely as private concerns without recourse to the public purse. If you could see over the sandbags you might find it's worthy of some discussion in the abstract.0 -
Rabble Rabble wrote: »its the same in law. The court is saying that the (unpaid) home teacher does not need to be paid by the State, so we are arguing that teachers outside of the State education system dont have to be paid.
But they are paid, as a salary cap on teachers would be legally unenforcable and would lead to the private schools paying higher wages, getting the best teachers in the country (turning into quasi-grind schools a la the Institute of Education on Leeson Street) and establishing an actual class divide.
The current system is equitable. The parents of the students of private schools are paying for the same quality of teachers as public schools AND funding the running of the school itself. Would you prefer if the government took this extra expense on to satisfy your opinions regarding class and privilege?0 -
So as the court made no mention of any obligation to pay a single parent (no mention of if they were a teacher or not) a salary to teach their progeny in a one to one environment, you parallel this with pensionable PAYE workers teaching a group of 30 odd in a formal environment?
Yes. If, as your alter ego suggested, the state has an obligation to provide [pay for] education then yes there should be no distinction. But clearly the court saw a distinction between the private provision of education and state-funded education in this case. It might be argued that such a distinction had further possibilities.0 -
-
1) I never claimed there was a constitutional obligation.
2) That's not the case at all. All tax-payers are allowed to derive beneft from the fund to which they contribute. I think you realise that is the case too.
1) So where does this obligation derive from then?
2) So you are saying that being unable to afford fees for a fee-paying is irrelavant once you have paid tax? I'm not so sure that all tax-payers are allowed to derive benefit from the funding of private schools but perhaps you'd elaborate. I always assume fees would prevent this, and that the alleged unfairness suggested by the OP was bound up in this reality.0 -
1) http://www.educationireland.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=26
Here's the list of schools - in my past experience every one of them was getting copies of the newspaper I worked for. I assume the same situation obtains.
Just taking the first say... 10 private schools listed in Dublin. I attended one of them and know people in every single other. I've never seen or heard of free Irish Times being distributed. Oh, and I also did work experience in the Irish Times as well and never heard anything of the sortI said I didn't know if schools sold papers or not, so you'll have to mull over the question of subsidised papers yourself. I couldn't comment on that which is why I haven't.
So the notion of subsidised papers for private schools might as well have been pulled out of thin air?2) Sounds terribly like hiring public sector teachers to me. Are you sure the private sector does not have a better method?!
Sounds terribly like the pre-qualification process for teachers sitting a hDip to me. I'm sure the private sector has a better method that could be implemented, I was just giving an example as you were being pedantic.3) I cannot comment on the standard of teachers in fee-paying schools - you are the only one talking about that. They are recruited in the same manner as every other school so I'd assume they are the same mix as the rest, but I cannot say.
So whats the issue? This simply means that the parents of students in such schools are paying for the running and administration of the school instead of the state. Sounds pretty fair to me.
[quote[The educational advantage in such schools is in smaller classes and better facilites not (necessarily) better teachers. Of course in some cases sending children to such schools is more about social engineering than educational advantage. [/quote]
Oh, better facilities. Most of which are used almost exclusively extra-curricularly and pretty much boil down to either music, drama, IT or sports facilities. The benefit of which, I might add, could be achieved far cheaper in the private sector and is freely available to anyone who can afford it.
Do you have any statistics that private schools have smaller classes?4) The issue, as raised by the OP, (you should have read the post) is whether private schools should not operate completely as private concerns without recourse to the public purse. If you could see over the sandbags you might find it's worthy of some discussion in the abstract.
And my counter-issue, which I've stated previously, is why should the middle-class citizens of Ireland not fund the running of a number of (mainly religious) schools without recourse to the state? Would you prefer that the state incur the hundreds upon millions of a cost?0 -
Why should people who contribute significantly to that purse be excluded from drawing on it?
That's the question which gets at the heart of the apparent unfairness. Should the tax-payer fund enterprises which exclude people on a financial basis and in doing so derive funding from other sources?0 -
Advertisement
-
2) So you are saying that being unable to afford fees for a fee-paying is irrelavant once you have paid tax? I'm not so sure that all tax-payers are allowed to derive benefit from the funding of private schools but perhaps you'd elaborate. I always assume fees would prevent this, and that the alleged unfairness suggested by the OP was bound up in this reality.
Sorry, where does it say that the state funds private schools? The state pays the wages of all teachers, across the board, and oversees their eligibility and fitness to practice - ensuring that the standard of teaching, public or private, is roughly the same average across all schools. The state, however, does fund public schools.0
Advertisement